Jump to content

Gay Lord

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gay Lord

  • Rank
    Lord of the Gays

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting wizards lose familiars. I was simply mentioning what *I* do in my PNP game, not that I think wizards should lose them in BG. I know most gamers see familars as a wizard thing. I know I'm probably alone in seeing them as druid things. That's why I was simply asking that SD consider adding them, possibly, for druids to get. I could explain at length why I think they're more appropriate for druids, but I don't know if anybody cares to read it, nor am I overly inclined to write it.
  2. That's where I disagree. IMO a familiar is a druidy thing, going back through the history of medieval europe and how the idea of familiars started in the first place, with christianity and satan. Obviously this is all fantasy, but I've always felt they really belong to druids, not wizards. I think rangers should have animal companions (watch the Beastmaster movie) and druids should have familiars. Wizards could make pacts with demons for powers, giving them an imp or quasit, or they could create a minion, such as the homonculous. I know wizards have had familiars in D&D for decades, which has in turn greatly influenced countless other fantasy books and games, but the origin of the idea of familiars has always been clearly druid to me, both historically and game-wise. But it's just an opinion. : ) Here's the wiki list of familiars from BG2: Lawful Good: Pseudo Dragon Neutral Good: Pseudo Dragon Chaotic Good: Fairy Dragon Lawful Neutral: Ferret True Neutral: Rabbit Chaotic Neutral: Cat Lawful Evil: Imp Neutral Evil: Dust Mephit Chaotic Evil: Quasit Allowing one step from TN gives the green options for druids, all of which seem perfectly fine to me. I would say the fairy dragon is particularly druidy, even though it's not in the five options. I understand imps and quasits may not seem druidy to others, but ALL familiars seem non-wizardy to me, so... lesser of two evils. My vorpal rabbit just critted the belt ogre for 4 damage, killing him ("lookit tha bones!!!"). Though he only causes 1-2 damage, he seems to have a high AC, great thaco, and the ability to spawn many of them is definitely OP. Of course, right after killing the ogre, Xzar summoned another to deal with some wolves and caused a wild surge:explosion. So, I'm starting a new game. I don't like OP stuff so I'll give him something else (though I really think the bunny suits him best). My suggestion for the rabbits is to eliminate their damage and thaco. Their role should be damage soakers, not damagers. Give them poor AC and 1 hp, and limit their summoning cap. Either one, or maybe one per 2-3 levels.
  3. In my world bards can cast up to 9th. All classes capable of casting spells, can cast 9th at the appropriate level (18th). I even let the side casters, like pal and rgr cast up to 9th. What I did with them was erase their handful of spells, and the hefty level delay, and just give them a domain. They gain spells at the same level as every other caster (even levels), but the only have their one domain, so they only get one spell for each spell level. So a L18 ranger has spells of 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1. With only one spell to choose from at each level, there's no difficulty for the not-very-bright warriors on what to pick. And because they gain spells at the standard rate instead of a huge delay, you no longer have stupid things like a 9th level paladin getting a CLW. Gosh, my 70hp pallie can now heal 4 hp a day. Look out world!
  4. I can share my PNP bard for whatever inspiration it gives, altering it for BG. I think it's important to decide what a bard is. I spent many years struggling with what a bard is supposed to be, what role it serves. I finally decided that what it's for is for those who want a little of everything, without the xp penalty of multiclassing. For example, a person who wants to play an F/C, but doesn't want to fall far behind the party in levels, might choose a paladin. It's not exactly an F/C, but close enough to have elements of both. Now, what if someone wants to play an F/M/T or F/M/C? That will put you well behind the party. What about the ultimate, an F/T/C/M? And doing this in 3E? Forget it. A 5/5/5/5 char is pathetic compared to a 20 anything. The bard class is the solution. It lets you get elements of the four main classes without the massive xp hit. People have long repeated that the bard is a "jack of all trades, master of none". However, in constant reviews of the class, people keep focusing on the "master of none" part. They keep designing bards that are second rate fighters, or second rate mages. But why play a second rate something when you can play a first rate something? People never seem to remember the first part of that phrase: "jack of all trades". It's not that you can mold and shape the development of your bard to eventually be a second rate fighter OR mage. The strength of the class should be that you can be a second rate fighter AND mage AND thief AND priest. The key word here is "and", not "or". To me, a well-designed bard class should allow elements of all four classes. The strength is not that it is better in any given area when compared to a class that focuses on that, but that the bard is skilled in ALL areas, something no other class can do. It is supposed to be a jack of ALL trades. ********************************************************************* Armor = chain (can cast spells in armor) Shield = no Weapons = no 2H melee (or bastard or katana) Style = single weapon style Skills = PP, OL, DI... 10 points to spend per level (player essentially chooses one skill to train) (DI should be bard-only skill) In my PNP game, casters have infinite castings. They can cast the few spells they know infinite times a day, with a cooldown for each spell after casting. I've also pushed back when casters gain new spell levels from every odd level to every even level. This means they have NO spells at first level (which makes your cantrip component a welcome addition). Priests however are still without. Any chance of adding orisons for priests? In PNP bards only have 1/2 spells per level (one at each level, capping at two), but they also have a bard domain to help out. In BG, since I can't give infinite castings, I've modified my spell tables to give bards 2/4 spells (two at each level, capping at four). I give 4/8 for clerics and mages, and 6/12 for druids and sorcerers in BG. While bards have the fewest spell slots of all the casting classes, I give them the widest selection. In PNP, bards are not limited to arcane spells. They can choose any cleric, any druid or any mage spell they wish. It's entirely possible to have a bard that can cast bless, barkskin and fireball. Because of such a huge selection to choose from, it virtually guarantees that every bard met will have a unique spell selection, emphasizing their diversity. I don't know how difficult it would be to give bards all the divine spells, or if it's even possible, but that to me is part of the strength of the class, what it's "supposed" to have. In addition, I think bards should also have the ability to use any magic item at start, a lesser form of the UAI HLA. This stems from their high lore skill. I also think UAI should only be available to bards, not thieves. While bards might not have all the armor, weapon and style skills of fighters, they have enough. They don't have all the thief skills, but they have enough. They can't cast as many spells as major casters, but they have the entire spell index to choose from. And by being composed of tiny parts of every class, they qualify as each class when it comes to using every magic item they find. As I've said, they are jacks of all trades. As for their bard song, there are different approaches you can choose. You can follow the BG method which is just to create one song for each kit, so if you want 7 bard songs, you create 7 kits. Another approach is to create a song that scales (hehe) with level. I think the default song is too weak, and both needs to start stronger (like the skald) and scale better. Right now it acts like a bless spell. I recommend having it affect everything: hit, damage, crit, saves... even perhaps MR and physical/energy resistance. It should also help obviously with morale (khalid) and fear. I would look into allowing a bard to sing and fight at the same time (but not cast spells or use items). Welp, that's my input, HTH.
  5. Just wanted to drop off two tiny ideas. Cantrip for Diviner = Farsight. I think this would be a neat cantrip for players without being OP. Feature for druids = familiars. All the way back in 1E I felt that the devs were wrong to give familiars to wizards instead of druids. It was even more weird that wizards had to get help from druids to find a familiar, wizards who routinely chop up creatures for parts and care only about themselves, while druids, people who dedicate their lives to helping animals, can't get one. In my own PNP druids get familars and wizards don't. So I'd suggest/request a way for druids to get familiars as a base ability. EDIT I've made Xzar a wildmage (don't know if he's supposed to get one cantrip or two) and chose the bunny for his spell ("I know dragons with feet like rabbits, 'tis true I swear!"). Is there supposed to be a limit on this spell? Duration? Summon cap? There seems room for exploitation if I can call up a horde in advance and simply outnumber my foes. I've only JUST started using the cantrip, but wanted to add a note here while I play some more.
  6. Well, thanks for replying anyways! Your answer gave me what I wanted, as you indicated that Dorner's changes are both undocumented and not that extensive after all. I don't care at all about restriction listings in item descriptions, and I DO care about double spacing between sentences (which is what I've done all my life). So you've converted me Wisp. I'm now an adoring fanboy and will use only your mod for ever and ever. : ) Now, if only I was able to edit mod text from all the 2nd language modders...
  7. The readme regarding the game text update option says: "The first (and recommended) option will install "GTU Light" (by Wisp), a fairly minimalistic dialogue update which contains only the most relevant typographical corrections. The second option will install "GTU Classic" (from Baldurdash, by Kevin Dorner), an in-depth dialogue revision, parts of which may be considered arbitrary by purists." I'm installing this mod using Big World Setup, which has the light version selected by default. I'm somewhat anal regarding proper spelling and grammar, which is why I love text fixes in games, but It's not clear how "arbitrary" Dorner's changes are. Is it arbitrary in the sense that single sentences are rewritten to allow better flow from sentence structure and phrasing, or that entire sections are rewritten in ways that may change the very mood or tone of the passage? I've chosen the second option for my install, but I'd like to request a little more detail in the readme on what Dorner's changes do. Obviously, this is a very minor issue that probably nobody else cares about, but I thought I'd request it if it's no trouble. TIA
  8. Reading the readme, it says that several people reported bugs with the wandering assassin groups (shorty and amazon), so they're now scripted to appear on random encounter maps. My question is, what happens if you flee the map? Will they attack again at a later date? When they attacked on a permanent map, they remained there until slain. If they're appearing on a random encounter map, which is never repeated, then I'm guessing that if you flee them, they're gone for good, technically waiting for you on a map you can't return to. This means their xp and items are lost. This seems both silly, and illogical. If they're wandering around looking for you, running away shouldn't cause them to disappear forever (I don't know if this is actually the case). I want to know if you flee, will they appear again, and if not, how do I implement the code in the readme that says it will allow the groups to attack on permanent maps? Also, does that have to be done before a new game, or can it be done during a game, so long as they haven't appeared yet?
  9. You're the modder; I like the idea of a random outcome, myself. If you prefer having always good but with a negative, I'd recommend the negative be enough to make the player think twice. If the penalty is too mild, then all you've done is turn murky potions into normal potions. If you did something like what Salk said and gave murky potions normal bams (how would you deal with the issue of them not stacking with normal potiions?) then you're right back to potions occasionally having a bad effect, which would seem to be random, which is my suggestion. As for potion delay, I like the idea. I agree they should never be used as spell or magic-counters... they should have to be used BEFORE a situation occurs, or to deal with the aftermath (antidote, heal). I favor effect delay over PC paralysis. Characters should be able to drink on the run, be able to move about. Moving is far more important than drinking a potion. Let PCs drink, but give a few seconds for the effect to kick in.
  10. Apologies if I've missed this, am repeating this, or... whatever. What about the murky potions? Anything being done with them, the murky potions of healing, speed, and antidote? If not, I'd like to propose something that I would love to see. Currently murky potions are used once by a player the first time they play BG, and then never again. What if potions spoil? What if they go bad, or become less effective over time, or are affected by their owner being blasted by fireballs and lightning bolts over and over? What about every time you drink a murky potion you have a variable chance of outcome: 50% good effect 25% nothing 25% bad effect So for example, a murky healing potion would heal, do nothing, or harm. Speed would haste, nothing, or slow. Antidote would cure, nothing, or poison. You could even create more types of murky potions, such as murky extra-healing, or maybe murky invisibility. If murky potions are always bad, or 50/50 bad, players won't drink them, so they become pointless. With these percentages, there's a chance THIS drink will be bad, but in the long run you'll have a net gain over time, so there's incentive to keep trying. Some players may reload, but those players usually powergame anyways and so aren't likely to drink them. This would be for purists, and soloers, and no-reload gamers. This would be for gamers who like a richer world, one where potions aren't always 100% awesome, national food and health certified. Potions must go bad at some point, and this would reflect that. What's more, this could be used to replace certain potions in the game. When you meet Xzar, he gives you healing pots. Why? What if they were murky healing pots instead? What about the cave south of Beregost, where a healing pot sits. How long has it been in that damp cave, possibly cracked or seal broken? A murky healing pot seems more logical. Someone at the carnival could sell all the murky potions dirt cheap. I've been watching Lilly Black's LP of BG, and he keeps dying over and over, being constantly poor, hurting for potions. Having murky potions would add some fun to that, like a lottery ticket that might help or hurt you. I play with Hard Times, so money isn't as copious as for other games.
  11. This isn't a problem thread where I need help. This isn't a rant thread. This is just a thank you thread. I stopped playing about a year ago because I kept dying all the time. I recently started a new game and found that part of the problem I've been having for years was due to easytutu doubling the damage monsters were causing me. As such, I've now spent about a solid week putting together a BGT install (which will hopefully work). I used L1NPCs at the end to make all the joinable NPCs *just* the way I want them, with cherries on top. However, i couldn't assign a few proficiencies as I wanted. No problem, I could fix that with ShadowKeeper, and finish making minor touches that I wanted. I then had an "uh-oh" moment. Even though I allow druids to use flails and shortbows, I saw that they still wouldn't be able to equip them, as the items themselves prohibited it. I was then faced with the horror of having to find and edit every single weapon in the game to allow all the proficiencies I wanted. I started looking around. Looked at Ashes of Embers. Did some googling. Then I had a major DUH moment. I realized that L1NPC had a part that I had skipped over while blearily installing things at 3 am. After installing the "weapon tweak" component, I found that I was able to assign stars freely, and all the weapons appear to be unrestricted. Problem solved! I can now begin my new BGT game, happy that my party members will be just the way I want them. So I wanted to say thanks to Miloch for this mod, and anyone else who's had a hand. Thank you! EDIT Let me add another thing that impressed me. When assigning proficiencies, I gave Alora dagger and sling, and the mod assigned her a dagger for equipment. However, when I gave Safana scimitar and dagger, it gave her throwing daggers, just as I wanted! I'm guessing you have something in the code that recognizes that if their other proficiency is melee/ranged, then the daggers given would be of the other type. That's fancy! I increased the amount of ammo given to the NPCs, but that's still a clever touch of programming. : )
  12. I'd like to do some basic editing of the spells in my BG1 game. I'd like to change the class and level for numerous spells to match my own idea of how they should be arranged. For example, I want to make Flame Blade a L1 mage spell and Blindness a cleric spell. I know very little about modding so looking around the web, DLTCEP seems the tool to use. Am I correct in thinking that all I have to do is load a spell, change the class and level values in the upper left section of the General properties tab, and save? If so, next how can I figure out which spell version the game is using? For example, when I search for Magic Missile, there are about a dozen variants to choose from. Is there an easy way to figure out which version I should edit? Lastly, will these changes carry over to scrolls, or would I have to edit them too? For example, If I made Flame Blade a mage spell and there was a scroll of FB in the game, would a PC mage be able to learn the spell from it, or would the game still consider it a druid spell, and thus unlearnable, making the level up screen the only way to learn spells I've changed? Is there anything else I should know to make this work?
  13. "For armor, I recommend a Con requirement equal to 10 + the base armor bonus." I think we're miscommunicating. My initial suggestion was to make it easy to for the player to know what the Str req for a random weapon would be WITHOUT having to look up the weapon in-game. Quick, do you know what Str a morningstar needs? How about a scimitar? Halberd? Do you know the Str needed for every weapon? Yes, I agree that the logical approach is to base Str req on weapon weight, but here's another quick quiz. Can you answer RIGHT NOW how much each weapon weighs in the game? I'm guessing that you can't. Nor do you know the Str req for every weapon. That means the only way for you to find out is to load up BG and look at each weapon in-game. What I'm suggesting is a way to know WITHOUT having to look at the item in question. Basing Str req on the base damage of a weapon allows gamers to figure out instantly what any given weapon needs using knowledge we already have. Short sword does 1-6? *Bam* I know it needs a 7 Str. Bastard sword does 1-10? *Bam* it needs 11 Str. That seems intuitive to me. Studded Leather improves AC by 3? *Bam* I know it needs 13 Con. I don't have the weight or Str requirements from BG memorized, but I do have weapon damage memorized from years of playing, as I assume everybody else does too, which is why I suggested using that for calculation. Now perhaps this information isn't all that useful to other gamers. Perhaps others are fine just looking at items in-game to see what they need. I personally would find it useful to have a system to know what an item needs intuitively as opposed to having to memorize every item's requirements individually. But perhaps that's just me.
  14. I didn't know that. I'm getting ready to start a new game very soon which includes IR, so I'll see how you've handled it. Last night I finished adding L1NPCs (took forEVER choosing proficiencies) and I had to redo it at one point as some of the weapons I chose required higher str than they had (notably Tiax and Viconia). I was comparing Str requirements from vanilla BG and handn't noticed anything in IR's readme about standardizing all the weapon Str requirements. I was thinking as a simplified rule, since if you can't use it properly, then you shouldn't be wielding it (just to possibly gain some innate magic benefit, like fire resistance or something). As mentioned above, I don't want enchantment lvl to affect neither an armor's weight nor a weapon's speed (the latter is an "optional" component though). Only special materials or special abilities (e.g. a "hasted" weapon) should affect that. In case I wasn't clear, enchantment level is excluded. I was basing this solely on the BASE armor bonus, not modified bonus. So ALL leathers would need 12 Con regardless of enchantment, and ALL chains would need 15 Con regardless of enchantment, etc. (possibly modified by exotic materials). As I said, enchantment would have no bearing on requirement. Values would be derived from the BASE stat of the item. I see weapons and armor as most definitely having different requirements. Pick up a book. Hold it out at arm's length. Keep holding it. How quickly does your arm get tired? The book isn't a heavy object and you're not even doing anything with it like hitting monsters, yet your arm tires out. Smacking something hard with an object needs Str, yet continuing to act despite fatigue needs Con. Wearing a large metal object on your body and running away, jumping, climbing, running away, fighting, running away, carrying treasure or bodies and, oh yes, running away are very tiring activities. That's not a function of Str, but Con. Str reflects how much you can do at one time, but Con reflects how long you can do it Weight lifting = Str Marathon = Con I've seen weightlifters drop out of aerobics routines because they became too tired. Str /= Con
  15. That did it ! Thanks again Ardanis.
  • Create New...